This is a question that puzzles me so I bring it to you particularly because the concept of "Black" or "Asian" or "Indian" or "Native American" or "Disabled" or "Veteran" and so forth and so on do not carry this tag with their rights. Veteran's Rights are for veterans, they are not pro-civilian, they do not get backlash for not being pro-civilian, if anyone does give them such they are seen as buffoons.

Yet somehow this has changed for pro-female rights. In modern times I hear a lot of whining about this, particularly during the era of 3rd wave, and it makes no sense to me. Feminism has "evolved" perhaps falsely into a mimicry of Humanism or some umbrella for civil rights and has been forced to take on a "Motherly Role" in the civil rights community by definition by it's supporters for no good reason. I think of Feminism and support it because it's pro-female rights, simple enough, yet now it is convoluted and a mess, it does nothing, it "claims" everything, if you're a Feminist you're just all around great person who supports ... everything! Which walks away from the original purpose.

This is disturbing to me particularly because I am fine with Feminism not being pro-men. This sentiment holds that of a "traitor" for some reason as if by admitting that a female rights movement exists for female rights and to address female issues I am saying "Forget men, let us serve our female overlords!" which is complete nonsense; the whole concept of equality aside there isn't some reason to hold a dark faith over the concept of the doom and gloom that faces males. I support entities like ADAM (The American Divorce Association for Men) because the legal system is unfair to males in divorces as well; trying to cherry-pick who deserves what rights doesn't make sense yet people continue to broaden, instead of narrow, Feminism which in turn I would say deconstructs it's original ideologies into a state of concurrent failures to act.

Feminism today is not an active entity, it is very passive, and it is very disconnected. This is key because while 1st and 2nd wave had "outlying extremists" 3rd wave has an ambiguous standing so it could spread almost like wildfire throughout but that ambiguity is harmful. It doesn't grant a sensible understanding of why it must be "pro-men", because it's not, and it shouldn't be, because it's Women's Rights. I've even seen more than a few people separate "Women's Rights" from Feminism and almost declare that they are separate things and really Feminism is something it historically was not. This distortion, explain it to me?

I will posit that the institutional discrimination against women has gotten to the point that it is viewed as nit-picking, as women have advantages as well.

Most of the woes, in my opinion, are due to individuals views, not society, or its institutions, as a whole.

This differs from race, religion, and other equal rights issues, where there is clear injustice, or at least, reasonably believed injustice. For example, blacks statistically get harsher sentences and are more likely to be in poverty.

I am unaware of an issue that wholly targets women, except motherhood and dead beat fathers.

Also, veteran rights are more about getting what they were promised, not because they had less rights.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 8/30/2014 8:10:59 AM, blackkid wrote:This is a question that puzzles me so I bring it to you particularly because the concept of "Black" or "Asian" or "Indian" or "Native American" or "Disabled" or "Veteran" and so forth and so on do not carry this tag with their rights. Veteran's Rights are for veterans, they are not pro-civilian, they do not get backlash for not being pro-civilian, if anyone does give them such they are seen as buffoons.

Yet somehow this has changed for pro-female rights. In modern times I hear a lot of whining about this, particularly during the era of 3rd wave, and it makes no sense to me. Feminism has "evolved" perhaps falsely into a mimicry of Humanism or some umbrella for civil rights and has been forced to take on a "Motherly Role" in the civil rights community by definition by it's supporters for no good reason. I think of Feminism and support it because it's pro-female rights, simple enough, yet now it is convoluted and a mess, it does nothing, it "claims" everything, if you're a Feminist you're just all around great person who supports ... everything! Which walks away from the original purpose.

This is disturbing to me particularly because I am fine with Feminism not being pro-men. This sentiment holds that of a "traitor" for some reason as if by admitting that a female rights movement exists for female rights and to address female issues I am saying "Forget men, let us serve our female overlords!" which is complete nonsense; the whole concept of equality aside there isn't some reason to hold a dark faith over the concept of the doom and gloom that faces males. I support entities like ADAM (The American Divorce Association for Men) because the legal system is unfair to males in divorces as well; trying to cherry-pick who deserves what rights doesn't make sense yet people continue to broaden, instead of narrow, Feminism which in turn I would say deconstructs it's original ideologies into a state of concurrent failures to act.

Feminism today is not an active entity, it is very passive, and it is very disconnected. This is key because while 1st and 2nd wave had "outlying extremists" 3rd wave has an ambiguous standing so it could spread almost like wildfire throughout but that ambiguity is harmful. It doesn't grant a sensible understanding of why it must be "pro-men", because it's not, and it shouldn't be, because it's Women's Rights. I've even seen more than a few people separate "Women's Rights" from Feminism and almost declare that they are separate things and really Feminism is something it historically was not. This distortion, explain it to me?

There are several ways to address this, depending on how you define feminism:

1. Feminism is a movement that strives for equality between men and women. In this case, if women gain rights that men don't have then men should also gain that right according to the definition of feminism.2. Feminism is a movement that strives for the advancement of the female sex. In this case, should not males also be able to strive for their own advancement?

At 8/30/2014 12:08:06 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:2. Feminism is a movement that strives for the advancement of the female sex. In this case, should not males also be able to strive for their own advancement?

If we look at this then how does this preclude Feminism? As I said ADAM is very real and a fine organization as it does manage the discrepancy when dealing with divorce so the concept of "Men's Rights" and a Men's Movement is fine. If males banded together to end undue circumcision that's a fair and fine male-oriented goal. Females have the same. If there are two movements specifically working to improve male and female health they are not inherently in contention; it isn't "boys vs. girls" when you consider issues that only effect one sex.

At 8/30/2014 10:07:49 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I will posit that the institutional discrimination against women has gotten to the point that it is viewed as nit-picking, as women have advantages as well.

Most of the woes, in my opinion, are due to individuals views, not society, or its institutions, as a whole.

This differs from race, religion, and other equal rights issues, where there is clear injustice, or at least, reasonably believed injustice. For example, blacks statistically get harsher sentences and are more likely to be in poverty.

I am unaware of an issue that wholly targets women, except motherhood and dead beat fathers.

Also, veteran rights are more about getting what they were promised, not because they had less rights.

Really? 17% of Congress is female. Women are discriminated against in the upper tiers of society. All the positions of power do not have near the amount of women as they should have if they were representative of the society they come from.

At 8/30/2014 10:07:49 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I will posit that the institutional discrimination against women has gotten to the point that it is viewed as nit-picking, as women have advantages as well.

Most of the woes, in my opinion, are due to individuals views, not society, or its institutions, as a whole.

This differs from race, religion, and other equal rights issues, where there is clear injustice, or at least, reasonably believed injustice. For example, blacks statistically get harsher sentences and are more likely to be in poverty.

I am unaware of an issue that wholly targets women, except motherhood and dead beat fathers.

Also, veteran rights are more about getting what they were promised, not because they had less rights.

Really? 17% of Congress is female. Women are discriminated against in the upper tiers of society. All the positions of power do not have near the amount of women as they should have if they were representative of the society they come from.

So?Retards aren't represented either. What is your point?That women should be elected simply because they are a woman?

This assumes that as many women strive for these upper tier careers as men.

Are you further suggesting that a true feminist must vote for a woman for CEO or government seat, even if they like the man better?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

So?Retards aren't represented either. What is your point?That women should be elected simply because they are a woman?

No, I'm not suggesting that. If Congress was truly representative of the population(52% of the country is female) than Congress should at least be about 30% at the lowest. It is highly indicative of sexual discrimination.

This assumes that as many women strive for these upper tier careers as men.

I have no evidence that they don't. This is as ridiculous as saying African Americans are proportionally more impoverished because they are just more prone to employment issues.

Are you further suggesting that a true feminist must vote for a woman for CEO or government seat, even if they like the man better?

No, I'm not. I am saying that women should have a fair chance, and that women who are equally as or more qualified then men should have a chance.

Only around 7%, I believe, of the Fortune 100 are female, and around that number still for the Fortune 1000. You can't blame this on women just not wanting to achieve as much, just as you can't blame blacks being impoverished on laziness.

So?Retards aren't represented either. What is your point?That women should be elected simply because they are a woman?

No, I'm not suggesting that. If Congress was truly representative of the population(52% of the country is female) than Congress should at least be about 30% at the lowest. It is highly indicative of sexual discrimination.

Correlation =/= causationEver consider that women, by and large, aren't too fond of constantly being attacked and attacking themselves?

What should congress reflect? The population, or the pool of applicants?If there are only 1 woman to every 8 men running in primaries, let alone elections, whose fault is that? How is that sexual discrimination?

This assumes that as many women strive for these upper tier careers as men.

I have no evidence that they don't. This is as ridiculous as saying African Americans are proportionally more impoverished because they are just more prone to employment issues.

What is ridiculous is to pretend that blacks are on a level playing field. If inner-city schools are failing to teach, then it is not the fault of the fortune 500 that black CEOs are in short supply. That is not indicitive of racial discrimination of the companies, but as a result of other discrimination.

Similarly, women are less likely to have strive for such a cutthroat job, due to society's upbringing of women. Not to say that they can't do the job, but male CEO's outnumber them due to applicants.

Let's take the bottom rung, shall we? Wal-mart.Why are there so few women managers, but the majority of the staff is female?Could it be because women are the ones who usually raise the kids, so this job is either extra income, or single mom issues? Regardless, these women with kids are unwilling and/or unable to work the hours necessary for management roles.Is this discrimination? Not to me. It's just the state of affairs.

Are you further suggesting that a true feminist must vote for a woman for CEO or government seat, even if they like the man better?

No, I'm not. I am saying that women should have a fair chance, and that women who are equally as or more qualified then men should have a chance.

What makes you say they don't have a fair chance? The outcome?That's like saying one sports team doesn't have a fair shot, simply because the other team always wins.

Only around 7%, I believe, of the Fortune 100 are female, and around that number still for the Fortune 1000. You can't blame this on women just not wanting to achieve as much, just as you can't blame blacks being impoverished on laziness.

Sure I can, because women are not in upper management as much (except for CFO's are usually females, I've heard). Perhaps with time, due to the glass cielings of yesteryear, this will fix itself. However, there is still the hefty possibility that woman don't want the executive positions en masse.I don't know, but I try to keep an open mind about the cause, and not jump to the conclusion of sexual discrimination, which I am sure is the case in some (my guess is 20%).

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

Correlation =/= causationEver consider that women, by and large, aren't too fond of constantly being attacked and attacking themselves?

I know it doesn't, but considering there are still many stereotypes and prejudices against women in society, and considering we are emerging from a society that was flagrantly sexist, that's the most logical conclusion unless other evidence is submitted.

What does the bottom statement even mean?

What should congress reflect? The population, or the pool of applicants?

The pool of applicants typically reflects the population, and Congress would be representative of those applicants.

If there are only 1 woman to every 8 men running in primaries, let alone elections, whose fault is that? How is that sexual discrimination?

How many women run, actually? And how would you know the amount of women running is not the result of sexual discrimination? To run ina primary, you need to win the support of the party first.

.

What is ridiculous is to pretend that blacks are on a level playing field. If inner-city schools are failing to teach, then it is not the fault of the fortune 500 that black CEOs are in short supply. That is not indicitive of racial discrimination of the companies, but as a result of other discrimination.

I don't pretend. What you are prtending is that sexual discrimination is absent in the workplace, as is racial discrimination. What you are pretending is that few women ever try to achieve, and that despite comprising 52% of the population, and having access to the same education, are significantly absent in positions of power. If the Fortune 500 had applicants with just as much education, they would be racist if they preferred picking whites because of their race.

Similarly, women are less likely to have strive for such a cutthroat job, due to society's upbringing of women. Not to say that they can't do the job, but male CEO's outnumber them due to applicants.

And what, cultural values can't be sexist? It's not just women that are brought up this way, but men too, and these men may very well be the ones considering applicants after being raised to believe women should be mothers and not workers.

Let's take the bottom rung, shall we? Wal-mart.Why are there so few women managers, but the majority of the staff is female?Could it be because women are the ones who usually raise the kids, so this job is either extra income, or single mom issues? Regardless, these women with kids are unwilling and/or unable to work the hours necessary for management roles.Is this discrimination? Not to me. It's just the state of affairs.

"Not to you".These are low-income jobs most people get out of desperation. Ii m talking about positions of power. To even be considered to be CEO, you can't be too uninvolved in work. Regardless of how you try to spin it, even if you are right, cultural values that dictate women should stay home and raise the kids is sexist.

That's like saying one sports team doesn't have a fair shot, simply because the other team always wins.

It would be more accurate to say that the one team keeps winning, when the referees, rule-makers, camera-men, coaches, and investors were all members of the winning team.s.

Sure I can, because women are not in upper management as much (except for CFO's are usually females, I've heard). Perhaps with time, due to the glass cielings of yesteryear, this will fix itself. However, there is still the hefty possibility that woman don't want the executive positions en masse.

And I have not seen evidence of this. I don't doubt this is how some women think, but only 7%, even with cultural values included, is ridiculous.

I don't know, but I try to keep an open mind about the cause, and not jump to the conclusion of sexual discrimination, which I am sure is the case in some (my guess is 20%).

If it were around 25-30% I wouldn't think it was the case if individual sexism either, but when you don't even break the double digits, there is a problem.

27.2% of chief executives are women. (yes, at HUGE companies, it is much less)1.3% of male workers are chief executives, while 0.6% of women workers are.Mind you women work less than men, 44.4% of workers are women.

These occupations have more females than men by shear numbers, let alone their respective representations:Financial managers, Compensation and benefits managers, Human resources managers, Training and development managers, Public relations and fundraising managers, Advertising and promotions managers

According to this, 18% of federal congress if female.Further, of state legislatures, it ranges from 11% to 41%http://www.nwpc.org...

Comparing this chart to the other BLS chart, you'll notice women outnumber men in employees based on hourly pay.Further, you will notice that women are almost twice as likely to work part time as men.50% more likely to be making minimum wage than men, and almost twice as likely to make LESS than that amount.Also, notice that the similarities of men and women are most similar between 16-19 years of age. Why does it balloon out of control? Why are women most likely left behind? Discrimination or by choice?http://www.bls.gov...

Regardless of the reasons of the third chart, why is it evident of sexual discrimination that more CEOs are not women, as opposed to women are not able/willing/qualified for those positions?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

27.2% of chief executives are women. (yes, at HUGE companies, it is much less)

Rather small isn't it? The huge companies, by the way, are the ones with more power than all others, so if we are seeking representation, this is a far-cry from it.

1.3% of male workers are chief executives, while 0.6% of women workers are.Mind you women work less than men, 44.4% of workers are women.

You need to start realizing the lack of women in the workplace is itself a sexist cultural value. Can it be blamed on one person, or even on a group of people? No, of course not, but it's a remnant from the past that should be discouraged.

These occupations have more females than men by shear numbers, let alone their respective representations:Financial managers, Compensation and benefits managers, Human resources managers, Training and development managers, Public relations and fundraising managers, Advertising and promotions managers

Of those, only financial, human resources and public relations manages have any real power.

The pay gap has always been less of a problem for me as proportional representation is. The pay gap doesn't seem tool large and is subjected to many environmental factors.

According to this, 18% of federal congress if female.Further, of state legislatures, it ranges from 11% to 41%http://www.nwpc.org...

I was off on the exact percentage, since I was recalling it from a while back, but it's not really much higher than what I thought it was. Even at the top state legislatures it doesn't break 50%, meaning men either hold a slight majority to a dominant majority in state legislatures.

Comparing this chart to the other BLS chart, you'll notice women outnumber men in employees based on hourly pay.Further, you will notice that women are almost twice as likely to work part time as men.

I don't know why you keep hiding behind this - I've since stated that it's because of sexist cultural values that this is the case.

50% more likely to be making minimum wage than men, and almost twice as likely to make LESS than that amount.

Read above.

Also, notice that the similarities of men and women are most similar between 16-19 years of age. Why does it balloon out of control? Why are women most likely left behind? Discrimination or by choice?http://www.bls.gov...

A combination of both. I'd say at the higher levels, women are discriminated against, but at the mid and lower levels it's by choice.

Regardless of the reasons of the third chart, why is it evident of sexual discrimination that more CEOs are not women, as opposed to women are not able/willing/qualified for those positions?

And how do you know that isn't the case? You can't claim it's because there less qualified when the gap is so huge, and when you yourself said several managerial positions(the best way to CEO other than connections and family ties) are filled with women? These would be sure-fire ways to reach the top, and I am pretty sure they are just flat out less qualified, and less willing, considering they already hold the managerial ob.

Feminists are pragmatists who look at systemic prejudice and realize that humanism doesn't balance things out.

The problem is they don't recognize that systemic prejudice is not necessarily universal since systems are composed of agents. Likewise, what's pragmatic is subjective. Feminists aren't stupid. They know they're being manipulative in the name of their own self-interests. They just don't care, and they anticipate that they don't have to because if a woman gets disciplined after crying wolf for abuse after being manipulative, society will come to the rescue.

The problem is people refuse to think before they act, so feminists take advantage of that in order to play the victim and blame the victim which includes men that aren't prejudiced nor benefit from system prejudice.